There is not a time loop. Nintendo didn't exactly do the 'going back in time' thing like most modern time travel theories. For example, we can only assume there was never TWO Link's in the same time period. There are two possible solutions here.
My theory doesn't suggest that there is more than one Link at any given time. Rationally, Link's conciousness can only exist in one place at once because as the gamers we need to be able to play as him.
Meaning similtaneous existance in another world, while technically valid, could only happen between games, not direct prequels/sequels, etc. and not during the same game.
Once Link is sent back in time, all thought of what happens in the future is erased. The future doesn't exist. Thus, the course of events happens, Link is sent back in time, the events happen, etc... This isn't a loop, since the events only happen once. It is not a continuous process over several time loops, but just one event. Therefore, there is no way that Link could realize that this is a never ending cycle since it would be completely natural for him.
This is impossible because he goes on to meet Princess Zelda promptly after leaving, and Navi left him in the Temple of Time. What this would indicate is that Link and Navi were both conciously aware of what had happened in the future.
The other, what seems to be more rational scenario, based on the evidence of the game is the following. Princess Zelda sends Link back in time so that he can live through his childhood. It seems to be inferred that she isn't sending Link back JUST to repeat the same process over again. It seems clear that young Link and Princess Zelda somehow work together to prevent Ganondorf from gaining power and seal his power. If ANY sort of paradox ever occurs, it is right here. Since if Ganondorf is vanquished, then the future would never take place. Perhaps one could look at it on a linear path. (Events happen in the future, but still have occurred in the past... meaning prior to the current events).
Right. We know Ganondorf could only be defeated with the master sword, and that the sages would need to seal him. The most logical and rational option for Zelda and Link to take is to awaken the Sages during the 7 years it would take for Link to be able to pull out the mastersword without falling asleep. Then Link simply seals Ganondorf as quickly as possible and has resolved the paradox that has been created.
This requires Link to be aware of what the future would have been, and given what happened at the end of the OoT, it would be the most rational option.
Another argument is that Link knows of the future because it happened. However, once he seals Ganondorf with Princess Zelda, that future never occurs. Link doesn't just vanish since there is only 1 Link in this time zone. Thus, all the events of the future (Adult Link) never exist at all.
This would create a split, so to speak. The endings CANNOT happen simultaneously. In fact, if one happens, it more or less means that the other CANNOT.
Woah... Link never sealed Princess Zelda. He went back in time so that he could erase the events and write a new future. What this indicates is not that Zelda would live in a seperate reality 7 years later post-war or anything, but rather that Link altered that reality and it is merely 7 years ahead, no split is needed or even probable.
This argument seems to be out of the scope of the storyline. It relies too much on radical assumptions and little evidence. Basically... instead of waiting in the Temple of Time for 7 years, he just goes off on his Majora's Mask quest? Why would he just go off wandering? Out of pure boredom?
At the beginning of MM, it says that he is looking for "an old friend" in the Lost Woods. Many believe this to be Navi or Saria, and with my theory either of those would make sense because he needs to either awaken a sage or find a guide, and so he makes a trip to the lost woods that goes horribly wrong.
It's evidence being taken as far as I can take it. In essence if there is something to be inferred or forced by logic I will take it there, because with the limited amount of evidence there is a limited amount of information I can gain. However the evidence must tie into itself, therefor I will analyze and conclude and argue to the best of my ability.
I do agree, somewhat. There seems to be some maturity in Link. It's clear that the events of Majora's Mask do not take place... days after, what I believe to be, the 'Young Link' ending of Ocarina of Time. Perhaps just months or even a year. (Maybe roughly 2 years, given the release date differences between Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask). Although that might be a bit far fetched.
I don't think we ever got a solid answer for how old Child Link was in OoT, but most of us presumed 10 years old, I think. At least I did, not that it matters too much.
This also has way too many assumptions and very little evidence. It's hard to base a 'split' theory off of what you believe to have no actual evidence. Sure the events take place in what seems to be parallel universes, (given the arbitrary dates that were given to the games). Just stating that 'some unknown event' caused the split seems a bit... odd. Especially when there appears to be an obvious and somewhat logical reason for a split (Ending of Ocarina of Time).
Except I have refuted the split for the "multiple endings" of OoT. I know that Nintendo said the games happened in multiple universes(TP and WW) and I know that no solid cause can be given for the split yet if the Child/Adult Split is refuted.
In essence I have proven my theory to be the most likely and most accurate out of all of the options, but it is still a theory as opposed to law or fact. Until Nintendo publishes something, this theory, like any others, is fair game.
There are just way too many plot holes for this type of argument to be plausible. Given the lack of evidence, or in some cases, evidence that refutes certain theories, it's hard to come up with a theory that it sketched in stone with absolutely no plot holes. So when coming up with a theory, its popularity is based less on factual evidence, but more on the 'lack of holes'.
Once again, I take the evidence and I use deduction to produce what I feel is the best theory.
I think this theory, perhaps has some potential, but it relies on so many unknown events to happen. In my opinion, it has way too many assumptions and inferences as well.
Inferences are valid but arguable. Assumptions, if they are confirmed to be actual fact, are not arguable.
Simply put the theory and it's assumptions throw in an if/then statement. If X then theory is true/false.
I'll restate in a way that will prove my theory beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If Nintendo releases a game or document confirming the reality split, then my theory is true.
And once again, it is merely a theory that I feel is the most logical. Therefore I will amend it with time, and if it is disproven somehow I will produce a new theory.